Reagan aide: These shots at Newt are “shameful”

posted at 11:00 am on January 28, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

One of the unfortunate side effects of competitive electoral politics has been the tendency to turn President Ronald Reagan into some sort of amalgamated mixture of touchstone and talking point. The Gipper has become the subject of left wing parody as Republicans vie with each other to invoke Ronnie’s name the most often, tie themselves to his image and cite their deep rooted connections to him. (Though Mitt seems to be the exception lately, saying during the last debate that Gingrich was actually closer to Reagan.)

But the most recent round of attacks leveled against the former Speaker have summoned up a speech he gave in 1986, excerpts of which gave the impression that Gingrich was criticizing the president’s policies regarding the Soviet Union. And to be honest, the first time I read them, I certainly got that impression myself. But now, a former aide to Reagan, Jeffrey Lord, is firing back against criticism from Elliott Abrams on this subject. Margaret Menge reports:

Jeffrey Lord, a political insider in the Reagan White House, railed against Newt Gingrich critic Elliott Abrams today for “grossly misrepresenting” Gingrich’s speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives in the 1980s as anti-Reagan when Gingrich was in fact lauding Reagan for his fight against Communist insurgents in Central America.

“It does no one — least of all Elliott Abrams or Governor Romney — any good to try and say that Newt Gingrich, as loyal a friend and ally to Ronald Reagan as could be found in the day — was somehow some crazed anti-Reaganite who got the Cold War wrong. Not only is this not true, its laughably untrue,” writes Lord in today’s American Spectator.

Abrams, Lord writes, was surely hoping no one would bother to “get into the weeds” and uncover the full record of what Gingrich said in 1986. But someone, a former Gingrich foreign policy staffer who now works in private industry, did, tracking down the Congressional Record for that year.

The full remarks – including the previously mentioned excerpts when taken in context – certainly do cast the speech in a very different light than that being presented in some recent ads by Romney and his supporters. The wide ranging speech actually heaps a considerable amount of praise on Reagan, particularly in his handling of the Evil Empire and their presence on the world stage. But included in there are concerns over the execution of the strategy. These cautionary notes were not just dreamed up by Gingrich, as Lord notes, but had been previously raised by analysts and observers including George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick.

None of this appears to be a rejection or castigation of Reagan, but rather a lengthy analysis of a vastly complex issue which includes suggestions of how it might be improved. This was obviously a topic which must have weighed heavily on Reagan’s mind for many years, and it seems fully appropriate that Gingrich – along with all of his colleagues – would weigh in on it as they deemed appropriate.

Lord seems to lay this kerfuffle on the “frothing” of a hotly contested campaign season and calls for cooler heads to prevail. That might be good advice under the circumstances, offering a chance to get back to debating the issues of today rather than dragging the ghost of Ronald Reagan around like some sort of voodoo doll on each side. There are, no doubt, plenty of policy issues where people can disagree with Newt – as well as the rest of the remaining field – without going down that road.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Yes, everyone who points out that you attempted to disingenuously report polling data and cites the actual data is part of a vast “Mittbot conspiracy”. Oy, the paranoia and denial of reality is truly astounding.
whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Romney’s doing no better than Newt right now in the polls nationally.
ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

As I said, you’ll have to tell that to Presidents Perry and Cain, who also had a temporary bump nationally before their respective falls. If there were a national vote during such brief snapshot periods, you might have a point. However, there is no national primary, so such fleeting moments are meaningless. The real action is obviously in the state by state primaries, to deny that is to be desperately out of touch with reality.
Also – live by the polls, die by the polls:
RCP Average
Obama 51.4
Gingrich 39.4
Obama +12.0
(Not even anywhere close to any margin of error.)

In addition to the face of the party are all of the donors and other money people. They have a significant amount of say in who gets support and how. This is true for both parties, so this is not a Republican only thing.

Yes Virginia, there is a Republican establishment and it goes all the way down to the local level. I’ve personally witnessed this here in the local Pima County Republican party where the party establishment has acted as bad as a bunch of dang democrats over the past 1 to 1 1/2 years since the Tea Party has become influential. This past summer, they used very sleazy parliamentary maneuvering to oust the local Republican chairman whom they did not like. They essentially violated the rules to oust him, then changed the rules post-facto to grant themselves the authority to do so. They have censored the comments of their so-called discussion web pages to make it appear that all Pima county Republicans are behind the establishment. This same nonsense exists at the national level and the people in charge are big government types who want the majority because it gives them control over the money. Smaller government? Heavens no! That would erode their power. They will rule differently, but make no mistake, they intend to rule.

Considering that he’s wearing that uniform to help protect your right to voice your support for a particular candidate, your comment was a cheap shot.

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Wrapping oneself in the flag does not make one a patriot. Making “CLAIM” to being in a war zone fighting for our rights is just that at this time, a CLAIM. A claim I would argue is somewhat suspect due to the massively large amount of time this person has to make POLITICAL POSTS on the internet with. I would imagine that if this is the case, he is probably breaking military codes of conduct by using government infrastructure to send this message.

he did have to pay the 300k and he was forced out of power by his own party.

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

A Newsmax examination of the House Ethics Committee report, and the record of the House debate in January 1997 as recorded in the Congressional Record, supports Gingrich’s contention that the $300,000 he paid was a “reimbursement” or “sanction” related to legal fees, but not a fine or admission of any wrongdoing. Source

Gingrich did not resign his Speakership in “disgrace” because of the ethics charges, as the Romney campaign is alleging. He resigned two years later because Republicans, though holding the House, did not do as well as expected in the 1998 House elections.

Wrapping oneself in the flag does not make one a patriot. Making “CLAIM” to being in a war zone fighting for our rights is just that at this time, a CLAIM. A claim I would argue is somewhat suspect due to the massively large amount of time this person has to make POLITICAL POSTS on the internet with. I would imagine that if this is the case, he is probably breaking military codes of conduct by using government infrastructure to send this message.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

If he’s a REMF, he’s probably got computer access. In any case, it’s not just Mitt but HIS WHOLE FAMILY and their historical background that shows what they think of military service. His and his sons’ avoidance of it was not accidental.

As long as some want to go back to the day FDR died in evaluating Gingrich, we need to remember that Reagan wasn’t as pure as virgin snow either.

I used to watch Reagan when he hosted Death Valley Days, sponsored by 20-Mule Team Borax. The way they beat those po’ mules to make them go faster in the opening sequence was awful. And you don’t think Reagan knew about it? Was he Sgt. Schulz or something?

And then there was the time when Reagan was the prime spokesman for GE in the early sixties. GE used to give him all these super-modern gadgets for a home which they then showcased. While once watching a tour of his home, I thought I had flipped the channel to “The Jetson’s.”

Thanks for your input. I’ll be sure to let my nephew, who is currenting serving in Afghanistan, know that astonerii thinks “he is probably breaking military codes of conduct” by commenting on political blogs.

whatcat spat: he did have to pay the 300k and he was forced out of power by his own partyOf the 84 ethics charges against Newt, he was found innocent of 83 of them. The IRS then determined that the 84th was also bogus. The IRS determined that he violated no tax laws.none. nada. zip. zilch.

Romney-bots should avoid parroting DNC smears.

The Gingrich Congress added over twenty million jobs, balanced the budget and started to pay down the national debt. Only Gingrich Republicans have a successful record of both economic growth and controlling Federal deficits (despite Bubbah’s infamous Midnight Basketball largess).

If he’s a REMF, he’s probably got computer access. In any case, it’s not just Mitt but HIS WHOLE FAMILY and their historical background that shows what they think of military service. His and his sons’ avoidance of it was not accidental.

ebrown2 on January 28, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I was REMF too, but if I would have used military computers to say anything political, I would have been a prisoner. I was Motor T Maintenance, second echelon.

Thanks for your input. I’ll be sure to let my nephew, who is currenting serving in Afghanistan, know that astonerii thinks “he is probably breaking military codes of conduct” by commenting on political blogs.

Gingrich did not resign his Speakership in “disgrace” because of the ethics charges, as the Romney campaign is alleging. He resigned two years later because Republicans, though holding the House, did not do as well as expected in the 1998 House elections.
Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I think it’s just a matter of interpretation, but I believe it’s reasonable to say that when your party votes you off the island you probably don’t exactly count it as a great achievement. From reportage at the time:
“By yesterday, at least 12 Republicans had resolved after several conference calls not to vote for Gingrich under any circumstances when the full House in January meets to elect the speaker as its first order of business, several lawmakers said, meaning that he would not have enough votes for reelection.”

Thanks for your input. I’ll be sure to let my nephew, who is currenting serving in Afghanistan, know that astonerii thinks “he is probably breaking military codes of conduct” by commenting on political blogs.

So how many people who ran with this story.will run a story correcting it ?how many apologies? My guess next to none.Just like what the press did to him last time 3 1/2 years later Newt is completetly exhonorated .How much press did that get? I’ll tell you.If there was any mention of it,it was on page 39 in one sentence.Not really saying Newt was innocent of all charges ,but more to the point after 3 1/2 years the freaking IRS didn’t do their job. Also there were no apologies then either.I’ve been cruising the web to see how this is playing out.Nothing at all from DRUDGE,most others stop short of an apology,others have taken the we’re talking about Newt he can’t be trusted anyway so who cares. LORD help us from SELF-_RIGHTEOUS people who think it’s their job to destroy others I can understand the mind set ,if Abrams, and Drudge put it out there it must be true. You know now it isn’t. How do you excuse editing clips and writing hitpieces in which you knowing LIE! not mislead the public.What does it say about their character??? I cannot help but wonder at Abrams?? If Nancy Reagan wasn’t so frail and suffering from dementia she would have his head.

Thanks for your input. I’ll be sure to let my nephew, who is currenting serving in Afghanistan, know that astonerii thinks “he is probably breaking military codes of conduct” by commenting on political blogs.
Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Please tell you nephew that I thank him for his service.
JPeterman on January 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Not surprising to see the Mitbots going all vicious against Lord, I mean, he spoke heresy against the one true Mitt. They cite Morning Joe as a valued voice of conservatism now? and Eliot Abrahms?..

Completely shameless..

They, the Mittbots, say Newt is too unstable, yet they will turn themselves into pretzel knots attempting to sell milk toast moderates as conservatives. Take a few minutes from an hour long pro Reagan speech, as Proof,.absolute PROOF, that Newt got the 80′s all wrong. A speech which prety well destroys their lame smear.

Of the 84 ethics charges against Newt, he was found innocent of 83 of them. The IRS then determined that the 84th was also bogus. The IRS determined that he violated no tax laws.none. nada. zip. zilch.
Romney-bots should avoid parroting DNC smears.

Gingrich did not resign his Speakership in “disgrace” because of the ethics charges, as the Romney campaign is alleging. He resigned two years later because Republicans, though holding the House, did not do as well as expected in the 1998 House elections.
Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I think it’s just a matter of interpretation, but I believe it’s reasonable to say that when your party votes you off the island you probably don’t exactly count it as a great achievement. From reportage at the time:
“By yesterday, at least 12 Republicans had resolved after several conference calls not to vote for Gingrich under any circumstances when the full House in January meets to elect the speaker as its first order of business, several lawmakers said, meaning that he would not have enough votes for reelection.”

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Though Romney could separate the incidents with an “and” – Gingrich investigation, the 300k and kicked out of the speakership for losing so many seats. Which, as a “running tally” actually probably sounds much worse.

They are the same kind of people that would follow around the Duke La Cross players and accuse them of being rapists.

They would follow this man around and make him relive the horror of being wrongly accused and convicted. “Imprisoned for 27 years for a rape he didn’t commit, Michael Anthony Green walked out of jail a free man on Friday and in the process was able to leave behind some of the anger that had fueled his survival behind bars.” If it gave them a political advantage.

If they could get twenty votes for Romney, they would target this man as well, A Westwego man who served nearly 30 years in prison for an aggravated rape conviction was released today after DNA testing cleared him of the crime.

If they could gain ten votes for Romney they would target this man, An innocent man jailed for 17 years after being wrongfully convicted of rape will not get any compensation for the time he spent behind bars – but he has been given a $111,000 bill for backdated child maintenance payments.

Romney and his fans have no actual morals beyond making money, in this case votes being money, it is what it is all about. Romney never cared about creating wealth as a businessman, as long as the money flowed on direction. Same goes for running for office, he does not care about the United States of America, he just wants to make his father’s dream a reality.

Okay as I am so sick and tired of your crap and blathering about Romney’s record. ACTUAL FACTS!!!!

This is for JennyMc, Terp, Ebrown, Schade, etc…Get your markers ready and SEE that Romney governed the BEST he could with an 85% Democratic Legislature. There are people I KNOW who have never looked at his record. Here it is from a Conservative standpoint:

Romney’s MA RECORD AS GOVERNOR:
Romney repeatedly pushed the state legislature to roll back the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0%

The state’s unemployment rate fell during Romney’s period, from 5.6 to 4.7 percent.

He also proposed a “tax-free shopping day”

Property tax relief for Seniors.

A manufacturing tax credit.

Massachusetts finished 2004 with a $700 million surplus
Finished 2005 with a $500 million surplus. “We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state’s history without raising taxes,”

Romney vetoed the transfer of funds from the contingency account. “One of the primary responsibilities of government is keeping the books balanced,” said Romney “The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we’re looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before.” The veto was overturned by the legislature, and all 250 of Romney’s 2006 vetoes were overturned by the Massachusetts Legislature.

According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts was 9.8 percent in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3 percent), and 10.5 percent in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8 percent)

Romney established and funded the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to the state’s public universities or colleges.

Romney also drafted other education reforms, including the recruitment of 1,000 skilled math and science instructors, bonuses of as much as $15,000 a year for top-performing teachers, and new intervention programs for failing schools

He also supported English immersion classes for students that cannot speak English and opposed bilingual education.

During Romney’s tenure as governor, Massachusetts’ per capita funding for public higher education decreased from $158 to $137
Romney denounced Harvard University of Cambridge, Massachusetts for inviting former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to speak at the school. Romney ordered all state agencies to boycott the visit by refusing to provide state police escorts and other service typically given to former heads of state.

Romney attempted to block implementation of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003.

Romney instructed town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, except for those announcing their intention to relocate to the Commonwealth by requiring the enforcement of the “1913 law” (General Legislation, Part II, Title III, Chapter. 207 (Certain Marriages Prohibited), Sections 11, 12, & 13), which prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in their home state.

“Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians,” Romney said in 2004.

Persuade the U.S. Senate to pass the Defense of Marriage Amendment. On June 22, 2004 he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging its members to protect the definition of marriage. “Marriage is not an evolving paradigm,”

On June 2, 2006, Romney sent a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

In 2003 Romney vetoed a bill funding hate crimes prevention
Romney announced plans to file a death penalty bill in early 2005. The bill, filed April 28, 2005, sought to reinstate the death penalty in cases that include terrorism, the assassination of law enforcement officials and multiple killings.

In May 2005, Romney presented a proposal to the Massachusetts General Court to crack down on repeat drunk drivers. Massachusetts had some of the weakest drunk driving laws of any state in the country. Romney called his proposal “Melanie’s Bill” in honor of Melanie Powell, a 13-year-old who was killed in 2003 by a repeat drunk driver.

Romney was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office.

In March 2002 during his run for governor, said that, “On a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion. However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years

He vetoed a bill on pro-life grounds that the bill would expand access to emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies. He returned from his vacation house in New Hampshire to veto the bill, because the Lt. Govorner, Kerry Healey would have signed the bill into law. The legislature voted overwhelmingly to overturn the veto and pass the bill into law on September 15, 2005.

Vetoed a Massachusetts bill to fund stem-cell research because the legislation allowed such cloning of human embryos. “I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning,” said Romney, calling the practice “a matter of profound moral and ethical consequence” The state legislature overrode Romney’s veto, with many legislators feeling that stem-cell research will be important in the future to the state’s biotech industry

In February 2005, Romney filed legislation to increase benefits for Massachusetts National Guard members. Working with the state legislature, Romney developed the “Welcome Home Bill” which provides Guardsman with reduced life-insurance premiums and free tuition and fees at Massachusetts universities and community colleges.

The bill also increases daily state active-duty pay rate from $75 to $100, and increases the death benefit paid to families of Guard members killed in the line of duty from $5,000 to $100,000. Additionally, the “Welcome Home Bill” creates a $1,000 bonus for Guardsman and reservists called to active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan since the September 11, 2001 attacks and a $500 bonus for those who were activated for duty elsewhere.

The legislation provides a $2,000 benefit for Gold Star spouses and increases the Gold Star parents’ benefit from $1,500 to $2,000. High school diplomas will also be granted to veterans who dropped out to enlist in World War II, Korea or Vietnam wars. Romney signed the bill into law on Veterans Day 2005.

Voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA
See here: “Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban”

That is a conservative record!!!! and where he tried he was VETOED consistently by his Legislature.

It’s going to be very amusing watching you try to slink away from dumb pronouncements like this one when Romney wins in November. What, you gonna slap a bumper sticker on your car saying “NOT MY PRESIDENT”?

Esoteric on January 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM

No. Since we are anonymous internet people, we will claim that we were his biggest supporters, and we will bask in the glow of unearned adoration from the masses.

Considering that he’s wearing that uniform to help protect your right to voice your support for a particular candidate, your comment was a cheap shot.

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Wrapping oneself in the flag does not make one a patriot. Making “CLAIM” to being in a war zone fighting for our rights is just that at this time, a CLAIM. A claim I would argue is somewhat suspect due to the massively large amount of time this person has to make POLITICAL POSTS on the internet with. I would imagine that if this is the case, he is probably breaking military codes of conduct by using government infrastructure to send this message.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

This is laughable…my CLAIM that I am serving. Also since you are such a wizard Astonerii most service members have internet access in our hooches…it’s called SniperHill or Magic Island or…

Yes, I am serving over here in AFG. I spent close to 7 years in Iraq. I can say what I want as a freedom of speech right as long I do not attribute rank or any other facts about what my role is over here.

Regarding Gingrich’s resignation here is Rep Mary Bono Mack:
“I was very involved and had a phone call from Newt just before he resigned, not only as Speaker of the House but resigned his seat altogether. Newt called me the day that he resigned and asked me if I still had any confidence in him and I expressed that I did not. I believed that under his leadership he abandoned conservative principles. I believed he no longer listened to people he was serving with. That it was all about Newt’s ideas. When he called me the day that he resigned, I let him know that I could not support him that I would not work against him at that point in time — I was a pretty brand new member. But at that point in time, I too had lost confidence in him. And by the end of the day, he had resigned not only speaker, but resigned his seat in Congress. Which actually, amazed me. I thought if he really wanted to stay and fight for the country that he would have stayed in the Congress as a rank-and-file member.”

There’s simply too much bomb-throwing to read the entire thread, so please excuse me if I have repeated another’s sentiment here.

Boiling it all down to winning the general election, conservatives must consider which weapons from the arsenal will be most effective. As I have been saying over and over, nominating Mitt Romney eliminates one of the best weapons we have: the highly unpopular, constitutionally questionable health care law, popularly dubbed “ObamaCare”. As Romney’s Massachusetts health care system was the blueprint for the new national law, it will be impossible for him to use this against the incumbent. Additionally, having Norm Coleman announce that repealing this law will not happen under a President Romney, we can essentially shelve this highly effective campaign weapon.

Another time-tested campaign weapon is to invoke the name/legacy/ideology of a previous leader from the party. This is why Reagan is so important. Who is the liberal go-to guy? Clinton? Maybe, but tying yourself to a man who was impeached doesn’t match Reagan’s legacy. That basically leaves JFK and FDR. While Hollywood has done an effective job painting this man into a legacy, the Bay of Pigs was one of the worst foreign policy failures in memory (sans what the current administration has been doing these past few years). FDR’s legacy is the 22nd Amendment.

If our choice to replace Obama is between Romney and Gingrich, the two major tools in which to do so are possessed by one and eliminated from the other.

Terp you are immature. When you are presented with FACTS of actual bills he signed into law as a conservative you resort to name calling and mockery. Grow Up! Have an adult conversation and recognize Romney’s conservative accomplishments.

Hit him on the MA Healthcare if you’d like BUT recognize he accomplished A LOT for a Liberal State implementing Conservative ideas.

Not surprising to see the Mitbots going all vicious against Lord, I mean, he spoke heresy against the one true Mitt. They cite Morning Joe as a valued voice of conservatism now? and Eliot Abrahms?..

Completely shameless..

They, the Mittbots, say Newt is too unstable, yet they will turn themselves into pretzel knots attempting to sell milk toast moderates as conservatives. Take a few minutes from an hour long pro Reagan speech, as Proof,.absolute PROOF, that Newt got the 80′s all wrong. A speech which prety well destroys their lame smear.

Massachusetts finished 2004 with a $700 million surplus
Finished 2005 with a $500 million surplus. “We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state’s history without raising taxes,”

Lie, Romney raised tax rates on businesses:

“Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney,” Boston Science Corporation chairman Peter Nicholas explained in January 6, 2008’s Boston Herald. Also, from 5.3 to 9.8 percent, Romney raised the tax on subchapter S corporations owned by business trusts — an 85 percent hike. “Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations,” the Council on State Taxation’s Joseph Crosby complained.

By 2006, Mr. Romney was traveling the country, all but openly campaigning for the White House as a fiscal conservative. Much to Mr. Norquist’s delight, Mr. Romney became the first Republican presidential candidate to sign his no-new-taxes pledge, in 2007 — something he had declined to do five years earlier when he ran for governor.

Mr. Norquist acknowledged that he had been deeply disappointed by Mr. Romney’s corporate tax overhaul. Unlike the governor, Mr. Norquist regards the changes as tax hikes.

“They changed the laws and the rules to significantly raise taxes,” he said. “That is a tax increase.”

But he is willing to look past it now. “The important thing,” Mr. Norquist said, “is that his stated position is that it won’t happen again.”

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared with what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

By 2006, Mr. Romney was traveling the country, all but openly campaigning for the White House as a fiscal conservative. Much to Mr. Norquist’s delight, Mr. Romney became the first Republican presidential candidate to sign his no-new-taxes pledge, in 2007 — something he had declined to do five years earlier when he ran for governor.

Mr. Norquist acknowledged that he had been deeply disappointed by Mr. Romney’s corporate tax overhaul. Unlike the governor, Mr. Norquist regards the changes as tax hikes.

“They changed the laws and the rules to significantly raise taxes,” he said. “That is a tax increase.”

But he is willing to look past it now. “The important thing,” Mr. Norquist said, “is that his stated position is that it won’t happen again.”

So, the Mittbots’ lie about Romney’s record is exposed by a Romney supporter. Gotta love it!

ebrown2 on January 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

way to twist the facts. Romney DID increase fees JUST AS REAGAN did…remember that MA was facing a 3Billion dollar deficit. So reduced taxes, cut spending, and raised fees that had not been increased in DECADES. That is how you FIX a deficit. Our country is going to face the same difficult choices here really soon.

Another tidbit:
After Democrat Deval Patrick succeeded Romney as Governor of Massachusetts, he undid several of Romney’s initiatives, including those related to budget cuts, policing of illegal immigration, and the state’s automobile insurance system. Patrick ran into his own set of difficulties with the public. Patrick’s approval rating was 33% in April 2009, with 49% saying Romney did a better job as governor than Patrick, and at its lowest Patrick’s approval rating reached 22%.

So even the liberal State of MA thought that conservative Romney did a better job than THEIR current liberal Governor.

Yes, it’s very sad. It’s all about Power & Money and many Congress and Senate members, Candidates for office will do whatever it takes to either keep it, or get it. Or as Rush put it, it’s all about Control of the Money.

way to twist the facts. Romney DID increase fees JUST AS REAGAN did…remember that MA was facing a 3Billion dollar deficit. So reduced taxes, cut spending, and raised fees that had not been increased in DECADES. That is how you FIX a deficit. Our country is going to face the same difficult choices here really soon.

g2825m on January 28, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Nope, he jacked up tax rates, you just lied again:

“Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney,” Boston Science Corporation chairman Peter Nicholas explained in January 6, 2008’s Boston Herald. Also, from 5.3 to 9.8 percent, Romney raised the tax on subchapter S corporations owned by business trusts — an 85 percent hike. “Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations,” the Council on State Taxation’s Joseph Crosby complained.

it is not a conspiracy JannyMae, it is individual acting in their own personal best interest, regardless of the outcomes for America. I do not need to list them, they self declare on a daily basis, and if you are too ignorant to see who they are, you will remain so no matter the evidence presented.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Some people were able to list a few ACTUAL names, and I agree with many of those names, although many listed were not politicians who hold public office, which kinda knocks your definition of “establishment Republican” out of the water.

If you were capable of naming names, you would have. Surely you can see that it’s not acceptable to expect people to accept your baseless assertions as facts?

When all you have to support your opinions is assertions that other people are ignorant, it damages any credibility you might have, not that I have given you much,ever since you revealed your hypocrisy in eviscerating Cain merely for allegations that he did things that Newt Gingrich openly admits to having done.

Right now, some of both Romney’s and Gingrich’s supporters are making themselves look like petty, lying fools, trying to tear down the candidate whom they see as the biggest threat to their boy. You are clearly on one side of that battle. You lack objectivity. I support neither of them, and I can recognize desperation when I see it. The idea that Romney is an establishment Republican and Newt is not is the biggest lie being told by Gingrich’s supporters right now. Gingrich is just as much establishment as Romney, he just happens to not be “their” preferred candidate, so “they” are attacking him.

Gingrich as well has his acomplishments, which much as they refuse to acknowledge them, the Mitt fans consistently ignore. They then atack his personal failings,. fair enough, I suppose, if you have never in your life ever screwed up a personal relationship.

I did my time in the cold war, security specialist at a SAC misile base. Vet’s have their disagrements, and I wil not support Mitt. The nasty vile way Mitt’s fans have acted in many cases, only seal that judgement, but they don’t cause it. I do not trust Mitt, not to act as a conservative, when he ran from it when it was to his advantage. He may be the only kind of “conservative” you will find in a deep blue state, but how does that make him the conservative choice?

I’ve yet to see any argument beyond, “he’s electable”, well the pols say, maybe not so much.

You’re demanding folks support your choice, which goes nowhere until Mitt starts apealing to the base, instead of the MSM, and smearing whoever stands in front of him. His problem with many of us, is trust, and that suffers everytime he softbals his atacks on Obama, then slimes Gingrich.

The man who gave us the 94 win of the House, deserves more respect than to have his reputation distorted by “conservatives” for short term gain. Especialy when that gain is for a “conservative” who fathered the prototype for Obamacare. For the guy who can feel outrage, only when the target is another republican.

You can cherry pick the best of his record, no one ever said he never did a republican thing while governor. You can do the same with Gingrich, showing only his best acomplishments. That after that, Mitt’s partisans went nuclear and ran every DNC smear as gospel, even when it was a distortion, prompting Newt’s il advised response with Bain.

You can’t get around the trust issue.

I’ve been a conservative since I was 12 in 71, I well remember what it was to be roundly smeared in the media as fringe,because the GOP hadn’t held the House in 60 years. Newt caused the liberals meme, the media narrative to blow up in their faces. I expect you’re still young, too young to know what that was like. I’l always be greatful for that 94 victory, and whatever Newt’s flaws, he delivered as no living conservative has. To say Mitt ran his state as best he could with 85% against him, is fine..
but by orders of magnitude ,

Thanks. Very informative. Here are the final observations in the article. I would urge others to read the whole article if you are interested in facts.

“It is interesting how Romney is mostly lauded for conservative positions he actually never implemented or was able to pass when he was a governing leader and Gingrich is chastised for supposed liberal positions for which there is no voting record. When it comes down to what they accomplished when in power to govern – Gingrich acted more like a Conservative President, and Romney more like a Compromising Legislator.

Similarly, why there is no evidence that Gingrich ever voted against something he campaigned on, Romney broke numerous pledges to both liberals and conservatives in his state.

So I leave it up to you to conclude who is more likely to do what they say.”

This nasty infighting is not helping the republicans at all. Vetting is appropriate but misleading, out of context or just plain lies are only helping Obama. Nominating conventions had their own problems but whoever dreamed up the current process should be taken out and shot. Personally, I would prefer going back to the nomination convention format. That would leave the field more open and we could do it all in a week instead of this Chinese water torcher round of weekly “gotchas”. We might even get a better candidate than we are going to end up with the current system. How about Fred Thompson with Palin or Perry for VP? Something like that could happen at the convention but is impossible under the current system.

I cannot believe that you want to claim the link to be conservative and support Romney at the same time. Exactly what has Romney done in support of the conservative movement? As long as Romney defends Romneycare, he will never be considered conservative.

It is a shrill site with innuendo and unsupportive attacks unless you call the MSM the gold standard of truth.

Considering that he’s wearing that uniform to help protect your right to voice your support for a particular candidate, your comment was a cheap shot.
Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Indeed – if there’s anyone who’s done something to earn the right to tell me to shove my opinions where the sun don’t shine it’s someone who is actually risking something – everything – to help make sure my right to express an opinion is secured.

Gingrich is the first major Republican candidate in memory to use class warfare as major plank in his campaign.
Gingrich’s latest surge in the polls was orchestrated by him being dishonest while attacking the media.
Those are two facts which are completely true and should have tanked his support, especially because he hasn’t addressed and apologized for them yet.
The latter issue is being held by the candidates for a future debate for sure.
Zybalto on January 28, 2012 at 2:36 PM

The bottom line is about heat. Newt’s attacked not just capitalism (and he did it quite dishonestly, per near universal agreement) as you noted, but he’s even attacked about Romney’s dog, of all things.

It’s a basic matter of Newt being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it. In regard to the “heat” bottom line; Newt has experiences being thrown out the kitchen door by Republicans before, so it’s not as if he doesn’t know where the door is located. Politics is just no place for temper tantrums or crybabies.

Some people were able to list a few ACTUAL names, and I agree with many of those names, although many listed were not politicians who hold public office, which kinda knocks your definition of “establishment Republican” out of the water.

If you were capable of naming names, you would have. Surely you can see that it’s not acceptable to expect people to accept your baseless assertions as facts?

When all you have to support your opinions is assertions that other people are ignorant, it damages any credibility you might have, not that I have given you much,ever since you revealed your hypocrisy in eviscerating Cain merely for allegations that he did things that Newt Gingrich openly admits to having done.

Right now, some of both Romney’s and Gingrich’s supporters are making themselves look like petty, lying fools, trying to tear down the candidate whom they see as the biggest threat to their boy. You are clearly on one side of that battle. You lack objectivity. I support neither of them, and I can recognize desperation when I see it. The idea that Romney is an establishment Republican and Newt is not is the biggest lie being told by Gingrich’s supporters right now. Gingrich is just as much establishment as Romney, he just happens to not be “their” preferred candidate, so “they” are attacking him.

JannyMae on January 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Like I said, reading comprehension is a skill 97% of all humans are born being fully capable of learning. I did not include only politicians. I understand your predicament, you make a claim, I refute it, you counter with something totally outside of what I claimed and are now stuck with your stupidity on display, but being human the way you are, you are not willing to let that level of stupidity stand you double down, but that will just make you look even less intelligent than you did a bit ago.

The establishment are in-place-people-who-benefit-from-a-large-intrusive-government. Whether they are congressional staffers, congressmen, executive branch permanent employees, presidential appointed czars, lobbyists who earn their money courting any and all of the above, companies who already have their fingers in the tax payer till, the lawyers that enjoy their immunity while convincing the government to make every American guilty of at least 20 crimes by the time they get to work in the morning.It is not a conspiracy, although some people that are part of it do conspire. It is just people who are invested in and benefit from the status quo or the expansion of the government.

I do not see where I claimed they were politicians only. You are an establishment person yourself, a different establishment. You have put yourself solidly in the establishment of being stupid and are not willing to do anything or allow anyone else to do anything to get your out of that spot your in.

Considering that he’s wearing that uniform to help protect your right to voice your support for a particular candidate, your comment was a cheap shot.
Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Indeed – if there’s anyone who’s done something to earn the right to tell me to shove my opinions where the sun don’t shine it’s someone who is actually risking something – everything – to help make sure my right to express an opinion is secured.

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Feel free to let me have that right too then, as I already stated, I was in war time service as well, I was on the front lines as well, I did it when we lived in tents, slept on canvas cots, had no AC, no cold running water and sure as f^ck were not provided with internet access and barely had enough phones to allow one call per month.

So, I understand that he is on your side of the argument, do I get as much deference as he does now?

Indeed – if there’s anyone who’s done something to earn the right to tell me to shove my opinions where the sun don’t shine it’s someone who is actually risking something – everything – to help make sure my right to express an opinion is secured.

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Seeing that he’s a lying anonymous Mittbot, I have no reason to think that he’s anything near to what he says he is. As for the rest, John Kerry and George McGovern are vets, too, but that doesn’t mean that I should show respect for the rotten political ideology they espouse or that they have veto power over my political expression because they happened to wear a uniform at one time. To his credit, McGovern would probably not think so, either.

And 90% of them are not what I would call conservatives. They are CINOs and part of the moderate center-right elites that support the current establishment (aka”they”). I’m not impressed with many on the list and never would I give any reccomndation from them any credence.